Book contents
- Theory and Practice in Policy Analysis
- Theory and Practice in Policy Analysis
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Policy Analysis: An Overview
- Part I Making Decisions that Maximize Utility
- Part II Some Widely Used Analysis Tools and Topics
- Part III How Individuals and Organizations Actually Make Decisions
- Part IV The Policy Process and S&T Policy (Mainly) in the United States
- Book part
- Index
- References
Part IV - The Policy Process and S&T Policy (Mainly) in the United States
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 August 2017
Book contents
- Theory and Practice in Policy Analysis
- Theory and Practice in Policy Analysis
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Policy Analysis: An Overview
- Part I Making Decisions that Maximize Utility
- Part II Some Widely Used Analysis Tools and Topics
- Part III How Individuals and Organizations Actually Make Decisions
- Part IV The Policy Process and S&T Policy (Mainly) in the United States
- Book part
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Theory and Practice in Policy AnalysisIncluding Applications in Science and Technology, pp. 441 - 566Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
References
Bardach, E. (1977). The Implementation Game: What Happens after a Bill Becomes a Law, MIT Press, 322pp.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F.B. and Jones, B.D. (1993). Agendas and Instability in American Politics, University of Chicago Press, 298pp.Google Scholar
Bloembergen, N. and Patel, C.K.N. (co-chairs) et al. (1987). “Report to the American Physical Society of the Study Group on Science and Technology of Directed Energy Weapons,” Reviews of Modern Physics, 59(3), pp. S1–S209.Google Scholar
Crecine, J.P. (1969). Governmental Problem-solving: A Computer Simulation of Municipal Budgeting, Rand McNally, 338pp.Google Scholar
Downs, A. (1972). “Up and down with Ecology: The ‘Issue-Attention Cycle,’” The Public Interest, 28, pp. 38–50.Google Scholar
EO 13563 (2011). Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. Available at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-01-21/pdf/2011-1385.pdf.Google Scholar
Hildreth, S.A. (2007). “Ballistic Missile Defense: Historical Overview,” Congressional Research Service Report RS22120, 6pp.Google Scholar
Hjern, B. and Hull, C. (1982). “Implementation Research as Empirical Constitutionalism,” European Journal of Political Research, 10(2), pp. 105–115.Google Scholar
Kemeny, J.G. (1980). “Saving American Democracy: The Lessons of Three Mile Island,” Technology Review, 83(June–July), pp. 64–75.Google Scholar
Kingdon, J.W. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, Little, Brown and Company, 240pp.Google Scholar
Kirst, M. and Jung, R. (1982). “Chapter 6: The Utility of a Longitudinal Approach in Assessing Implementation: A Thirteen-Year View of Title I, ESEA,” in Williams, W. et al., Studying Implementation: Methodological and Administrative Issues, Chatham House Publishers, pp. 119–148.Google Scholar
Lansing, J.S. (2007). Priests and Programmers: Technologies of Power in the Engineered Landscape of Bali, Princeton Univesity Press, 216pp.Google Scholar
Lansing, J.S. and Kremer, J.N. (1993). “Emergent Properties of Balinese Water Temple Networks: Coadaptation on a Rugged Fitness Landscape,” American Anthropologist, 95(1), pp. 97–114.Google Scholar
Lansing, J.S. and Miller, J.H. (2005). “Cooperation, Games, and Ecological Feedback: Some Insights from Bali,” Current Anthropology, 46(2), pp. 328–334.Google Scholar
Lee, K.N. (1993). Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment, Island Press, 243pp.Google Scholar
Lindblom, C.E. (1959). “The Science of ‘Muddling Through,’” Public Administration Review, 19(2), pp. 79–88.Google Scholar
Lindblom, C.E. (1979). “Still Muddling, Not Yet Through,” Public Administration Review, 39(6), pp. 517–526.Google Scholar
Manski, C.F. (2013). Public Policy in an Uncertain World: Analysis and Decisions, Harvard University Press, 199pp.Google Scholar
March, J.G. (1976). “Chapter 5: The Technology of Foolishness,” in March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (eds.), Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations, Universitetsforlaget, pp. 69–81.Google Scholar
Mayer, J. (2016). Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires behind the Rise of the Radical Right, Doubleday, 449pp.Google Scholar
Morgan, M.G. (1994). “Review of Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment by Kai N. Lee, Island Press, 1993,” American Scientist, 82, pp. 475–476.Google Scholar
Morgan, M.G. (2016). “Muddling Through on Climate Policy Won’t Be Enough,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(9), pp. 2322–2324.Google Scholar
Morgan, M.G., McCoy, S.T., Apt, J. et al. (2012). Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Removing the Legal and Regulatory Barriers, RFF Press/Routledge, 274pp.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge University Press, 280pp.Google Scholar
Parson, E.T. and Kravitz, E.L. (2013). “Market Instrument for the Sustainability Transition,” Annual Reviews of Environmental Resources, 38, pp. 415–440.Google Scholar
Pressman, J.L. and Wildavsky, A.. (1973). Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland, or, Why It’s Amazing That Federal Programs Work at All, This Being a Saga of the Economic Development Administration as Told by Two Sympathetic Observers Who Seek to Build Morals on a Foundation of Ruined Hopes, University of California Press, 182pp.Google Scholar
Raiffa, H. (1982). The Art and Science of Negotiation, Harvard University Press, 373pp.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P.A. (1986). “Top-down and Bottom-up Approaches to Implementation Research: A Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis,” Journal of Public Policy, 6(1), pp. 21–48.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P.A. (1988). “An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein,” Policy Sciences, 21(2–3), pp. 129–168.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. and Mazmanian, D. (1980). “The Implementation of Public Policy: A Framework of Analysis,” Policy Studies Journal, 8(4), pp. 538–560.Google Scholar
Sapolsky, H.M. (1990). Science and the Navy: A History of the Office of Naval Research, Princeton University Press, 142pp.Google Scholar
Schmalensee, R. and Stavins, R. (2015). Lessons Learned from Three Decades of Experience with Cap-and-Trade, No. w21742, National Bureau of Economic Research, 25pp.Google Scholar
Simon, H. (1985). “Human Nature in Politics,” American Political Science Review, 79, pp. 293–304.Google Scholar
References
Ambrose, S.E. (1996). Undaunted Courage: Meriwether Lewis, Thomas Jefferson and the Opening of the American West, Simon & Schuster, 511pp.Google Scholar
Barry, J.M. (1997). Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and How It Changed America, Simon & Schuster, 524pp.Google Scholar
Bruce, R.V. (1987). The Launching of Modern American Science: 1846–1876, Knopf, 446pp.Google Scholar
Burke, J.G. (1966). “Bursting Boilers and the Federal Power,” Technology and Culture, 7, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
Clements, K.A. (2010). The Life of Herbert Hoover: Imperfect Visionary 1918–1928, Palgrave Macmillan, 607pp.Google Scholar
Cochrane, R.C. (1978). The National Academy of Sciences: The First 100 Years, 1863–1963, National Academy Press, 694pp.Google Scholar
Dupree, A.H. (1959). Asa Gray: American Botanist, Friend of Darwin, Johns Hopkins University Press, 503pp.Google Scholar
Dupree, A.H. (1986). Science in the Federal Government: A History of Politics and Activities, Johns Hopkins University Press, 460pp.Google Scholar
Hawley, E.W. (1981). “Herbert Hoover and Economic Stabilization, 1921–22,” in Hawley, E.W. (ed.), Herbert Hoover as Secretary of Commerce: Studies in New Era Thought and Practice, University of Iowa Press, pp. 43–77.Google Scholar
Kevles, D.J. (1978). The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America, Alfred A. Knopf, 489pp.Google Scholar
Murray, R.K. (1974). “Herbert Hoover in the Harding Cabinet,” in Hawley, E.W. (ed.), Herbert Hoover as Secretary of Commerce: Studies in New Era Thought and Practice, University of Iowa Press, pp. 19–42.Google Scholar
Philbrick, N. (2003). Sea of Glory: America’s Voyage of Discovery: The U.S. Exploring Expedition, 1838–1842, Viking, 452pp.Google Scholar
Powell, J.W. (1875). Part 1 of Exploration of the Colorado River of the West and Its Tributaries Explored in 1869, 1870, 1871, and 1872 under the Direction of the Smithsonian Institution, U.S. Government Printing Office, 291pp.Google Scholar
Rabbitt, M.C. (1989). The United States Geological Survey: 1879–1989, USGS Circular 1050, 62pp.Google Scholar
Sobel, D. (2005). Longitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time, Macmillan, 184pp.Google Scholar
Stearns, P.N. (1998). “Why Study History?,” The American Historical Association. Available at: www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/archives/why-study-history-(1998).Google Scholar
Wilson, J.H. (1975). Herbert Hoover: Forgotten Progressive, Little Brown and Company, 307pp.Google Scholar
Wood, W.R. (2003). Prologue to Lewis and Clark: The Mackay and Evans Expedition, University of Oklahoma Press, 234pp.Google Scholar
References
Alvarez, L.W. (1980). “A Biographical Memoir of Alfred Lee Loomis (1887–1975),” U.S. National Academy of Science Biographical Memories, 51, pp. 309–342. Available at: www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/loomis-alfred.pdf.Google Scholar
Blanpied, W.A. (2010). A History of Federal Science Policy: From the New Deal to the Present, Rice University Press, 259pp.Google Scholar
Branscomb, L.M. (1997). “From Technology Politics to Technology Policy,” Issues in Science and Technology, 13(3), pp. 41–48.Google Scholar
Buderi, R. (1996). The Invention That Changed the World: How a Small Group of Radar Pioneers Won the Second World War and Launched a Technical Revolution, Simon & Schuster, 575pp.Google Scholar
Bush, V. (1945). Science the Endless Frontier, U.S. Government Printing Office, 183pp.Google Scholar
Conant, J. (2002). Tuxedo Park: A Wall Street Tycoon and the Secret Palace of Science That Changed the Course of World War II, Simon & Schuster, 330pp.Google Scholar
Constant, E.W. (1980). The Origins of the Turbojet Revolution, Johns Hopkins University Press, 311pp.Google Scholar
Gallagher, K.S., Grübler, A., Kuhl, L., Nemet, G., and Wilson, C. (2012). “The Energy Technology Innovation System,” Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, pp. 137–162.Google Scholar
Gertner, J. (2012). The Idea Factory: Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation, Penguin Press, 422pp.Google Scholar
Godin, B. (2006). “The Linear Model of Innovation the Historical Construction of an Analytical Framework,” Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(6), pp. 639–667.Google Scholar
Hart, D.H. (1998). Forged Consensus: Science, Technology and Economic Policy in the United States, 1921–1953, Princeton University Press, 267pp.Google Scholar
Hiltzik, M. (2015). Big Science: Ernest Lawrence and the Invention That Launched the Military-Industrial Complex, Simon & Schuster, 512pp.Google Scholar
Kevles, D.J. (1978). The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America, Alfred A. Knopf, 489pp.Google Scholar
Mazuzan, G.T. (1994). NSF 88-16: A Brief History. Available at: www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf50/nsf8816.jsp.Google Scholar
Morgan, M.G. (1991). “Review of Science and the Navy: A History of the Office of Naval Research by H.M. Sapolsky,” IEEE Spectrum, 28(2), p. 11.Google Scholar
Morgan, M.G. (1998). “An EE Who Swayed the World,” review of G.P. Zachary, Vannevar Bush Engineer of the American Century, IEEE Spectrum, 35(3), pp. 10–12.Google Scholar
Morgan, M.G. and Morgan, M.G. (1998). “Bigger than ‘the Bomb,’” review of Robert Buderi (1996), The Invention that Changed the World, IEEE Spectrum, 35(8), pp. 8–9.Google Scholar
Phelps, P. (2010). The Tizard Mission: The Top-Secret Operation That Changed the Course of World War II, Westholme Publishing, 325pp.Google Scholar
Sapolsky, H.M. (1990). Science and the Navy: A History of the Office of Naval Research, Princeton University Press, 142pp.Google Scholar
Smith, B.L.R. (1990). American Science Policy since World War II, The Brookings Institution, 230pp.Google Scholar
Stokes, D.E. (1997). Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation, Brookings, 280pp.Google Scholar
Thorpe, C. (2006). Oppenheimer: The Tragic Intellect, University of Chicago Press, 413pp.Google Scholar
Zachary, G.P. (1997). Endless Frontier: Vannevar Bush, Engineer of the American Century, The Free Press, 518pp.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D. (1996). Top Secret Exchange: The Tizard Mission and the Scientific War, McGill-Queen’s University Press, 252pp.Google Scholar
References
Abe, H., Shindo, M., and Kawato, S. (1994). “Chapter 5: Advisory Councils,” in The Government and Politics of Japan, University of Tokyo Press, 244pp.Google Scholar
Blair, P.D. (2013). Congress’s Own Think Tank: Learning from the Legacy of the Office of Technology Assessment (1972–1995), Palgrave Macmillan, 128pp.Google Scholar
Boggs, D.J. (1988). “Science and Technology Advice in the Judiciary,” Technology in Society, 10, pp. 317–321.Google Scholar
Breyer, S. (2000). “Science in the Courtroom,” Issues in Science and Technology, 16(4).Google Scholar
Carnegie Commission (1993). “Science and Technology in Judicial Decision-Making,” a report of the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, 92pp.Google Scholar
Carter, A.B. (1984). Directed Energy Missile Defense in Space, Background Paper, U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, 97pp.Google Scholar
DSB (2012). Charter of the Defense Science Board. Available at: www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/charter.htm.Google Scholar
Dupree, A.H. (1986). Science in the Federal Government: A History of Politics and Activities, Johns Hopkins University Press, 460pp.Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, A. (2002). “DARPA and Jason Divorce in Spat over Membership,” Science, 295, p. 2340.Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, A. (2006). The Jasons: The Secret History of Science’s Postwar Elite, Viking Press, 336pp.Google Scholar
GAO (2002). Technology Assessment: Using Biometrics for Border Security, GAO-03-174, Government Accountability Office, 242pp.Google Scholar
GAO (2011). Technology Assessment: Climate Engineering – Technical Status, Future Directions, and Potential Responses, GAO-11-71, Government Accountability Office, 135pp.Google Scholar
Golden, W.T. (ed.) (1988). Science and Technology Advice to the President, Congress, and Judiciary, Transaction Publishers, 523pp.Google Scholar
Guzzetti, L. (1995). A Brief History of European Union Research Policy, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 238pp.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (1990). The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policy Makers, Harvard University Press, 302pp.Google Scholar
Kantrowitz, A. (1975). “Controlling Technology Democratically,” American Scientist, 63 (Sep.–Oct.), pp. 505–509.Google Scholar
Knezo, G.J. (2005). “Technology Assessment in Congress: History and Legislative Options,” CRS report for Congress, RS21586, May 20. Available at: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21586.pdf.Google Scholar
Layton, C., Uri, P., and Dowling, W. (1968). L’Europe et les Investissements Américains, Gallimard, 255pp.Google Scholar
Margolis, R.M. and Guston, D.H. (2003). “Chapter 3: The Origins, Accomplishments, and Demise of the Office of Technology Assessment,” in Morgan, M.G. and Peha, J.M. (eds.), Science and Technology Advice for Congress, Resources for the Future Press, 236pp.Google Scholar
Mauter, W.R. (1998). “Churchill and the Unification of Europe,” The Historian, 61(1), pp. 67–84.Google Scholar
Mayer, J. (2016). Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires behind the Rise of the Radical Right, Doubleday, 449pp.Google Scholar
Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherché (2010). Les Mémoires de la Recherche: Etat des versements, Mission des archives, 302pp.Google Scholar
Morgan, M.G. (1975). Energy and Man: Technical and Social Aspects of Energy, IEEE Press, 536pp.Google Scholar
Morgan, M.G. (1997). “Why Congress Should Preserve the NRC’s Independent Technical Advice,” IEEE Spectrum, 34(12), pp. 59–60.Google Scholar
Morgan, M.G. and Peha, J.M. (2003). Science and Technology Advice for Congress, Resources for the Future Press, 236pp.Google Scholar
NRC (2008). State Science and Technology Policy Advice: Issues, Opportunities and Challenges, National Academy Press, 100pp.Google Scholar
NSF (1997). “Japanese Government Organization for Science and Technology,” U.S. National Science Foundation Report 97-11. Available at: www.nsf.gov/od/oise/tokyo/reports/trm/rm97-11.html.Google Scholar
OPECST (2015). “The Parliamentary Office for Scientific and Technological Assessment: A Presentation,” 4pp. Available at: www2.assemblee-nationale.fr/content/download/31593/288206/file/plaquette_opecst_anglais.pdf.Google Scholar
OTA (1985a). Ballistic Missile Defense Technologies, U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, 325pp.Google Scholar
OTA (1985b). Anti-Satellite Weapons, Counter Measures and Arms Control, U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, 146pp.Google Scholar
Pew (2007). “Investing in Innovation,” a report of the Pew Center on the States, 75pp.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, M. (1988). “Improving the Courts’ Ability to Absorb Scientific Information,” in Golden, W.T. (ed.), Science and Technology Advice to the President, Congress, and Judiciary, Pergamon, pp. 480–483.Google Scholar
Schneier, E.V. and Gross, B. (1993). Legislative Strategy: Shaping Public Policy, St. Martins Press, 289pp.Google Scholar
Schwartz, F. (1993). “Chapter 9: Of Fairy Cloaks and Familiar Talks: The Politics of Consultation,” in Allison, G.D. and Sone, Y. (eds.), Political Dynamics in Contemporary Japan, Cornell University Press, 311pp.Google Scholar
Serger, S., Wise, E., and Arnold, E. (2015). National Research and Innovation Councils as an Instrument of Innovation Governance, Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems, VINNOVA Analysis VA, 72pp.Google Scholar
Shepherd, G.B. (1996). “Fierce Compromise: The Administrative Procedures Act Emerges from New Deal Politics,” Northwestern University Law Review, 90(4), pp. 1557–1683.Google Scholar
Smith, B.L.R. (1992). The Advisers: Scientists in the Policy Process, Brookings, 238pp.Google Scholar
Vig, N.J. (2003). “Chapter 5: The European Experience,” in Morgan, M.G. and Peha, J. (eds.), Science and Technology Advice to Congress, RFF Press, pp. 90–98.Google Scholar
Vig, N.J. and Paschen, H. (eds.) (2000). Parliaments and Technology: The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe, State University of New York Press, 399pp.Google Scholar